By TT
In honor of the 161st anniversary of the Saints entering the Salt Lake Valley, I would like to explore the relationship between two of the most profound spiritual movements of the 19th century: ante-bellum African American spirituals and the rise of Mormonism. While the vast majority of work with regard to African Americans and early Mormonism has focused on the explicit role that African Americans played in Mormonism, and LDS attitudes to African Americans, I would like to examine some shared themes, narratives, and assumptions, especially in the period between Mormon migration and the beginning of the Civil War. At the outset, I acknowledge that such a comparison does not in any way entail an equality of suffering between Mormons and slaves, only some shared circumstances and themes expressed lyrically.
Read more »
By smallaxe
In our two previous posts we discussed the curriculum as well as what to cover in the theory and introductory courses for our new major. In this post I’d like to raise the issue of how the “areas of emphasis” should be structured and who/where we could draw from in creating classes from these areas.
Areas of emphasis (or areas of study–AoS) are organized differently depending on the organizing committee’s perception of “religious studies” as well as the school’s strengths. Below are three options of organization, although often times more than one is adopted to meet the diverse opinions of what constitutes religious studies, as well as the fact that they often overlap (how can one do sociology of religion for instance without focusing on an area or tradition?):
Religion in America, Europe, Africa, etc.
A strength of this approach is that it allows one to do more inter-disciplinary and inter-traditional work. A weakness is that if strictly interpreted one could end up knowing very little about any particular tradition outside of one geographical location. It’s also possible to end up ill-trained in many disciplines, but proficient in none.
Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc., and at BYU, I would imagine, Mormonism.
A strength of this approach is that it allows one’s work to extend beyond a geographic location. Islam, as we know, is a major religion of SE Asia for instance. A weakness is that in some cases the category of a religious ‘tradition’ is a construction of Western attempts to assert a universality of ‘religion’ (see for instance Oddie’s Imagined Hinduism). Working according to ‘traditions’ therefore could play into this bias.
History, Philosophy, Sociology, Anthropology, etc.
A strength of this approach is that it gives the student a firm grounding in a particular discipline. A weakness is that these approaches sometimes lack the depth into a particular tradition. A philosopher of religion, for instance, might not be well informed about the history of Christianity.
So, here are the questions:
Given BYU’s current scenario, how should the “areas of emphasis” be structured? What kinds of areas of emphasis could be offered?
Which faculty members should be drawn from in teaching classes in these areas? Related to this question are the more sensitive issues of: Should current classes in Religious Education count? Will faculty from RE be allowed to teach classes in RS? On what basis will this be determined?
In responding to these latter questions, let’s try to keep comments from becoming too personal.
By TT
“Reconciliations and Reformulations”:
A Conference for LDS Graduate Students in Religious Studies
Harvard University, February 20-21, 2009
http://faithandknowledge.org
Many Latter-day Saints experience their scholarship and their religion as
clashing cultures, each with its competing values and contradictory
conclusions. Religious studies students especially struggle to reconcile their
faith and the knowledge they acquire in graduate school. The forms this
reconciliation take–including the failure to achieve reconciliation–become
crucial episodes in a student’s life history. The purpose of the Faith and
Knowledge Conference for 2009 is to provide a forum for exploring these
attempts at reconciliation.
Read more »
By TT
The “Vision of Gabriel,” (aka Hazon Gabriel) a newly discovered Hebrew text written in ink on stone out of the antiquities market, made a big splash in the media over the last few weeks, and received some amount of coverage in the bloggernacle as well. Paleojudaica has been keeping track of all the coverage. First discussed in 2007 among a small group of scholars, the text has recently hit the media in a big way. The announcement of this text seems to have caught many off-guard, so I have been waiting to see what kind of analysis could be given after the initial dust had cleared. The first translation was published in Cathedra in Hebrew, and created some small buzz among people who really care. An English translation has been posted by Israel Knohl. Read more »
By jamesbarjoseph
Every so often I like to drop in and chat with you Mormons about your understanding of my epistle. There’s always been a great deal of interest in this passage:
James 1:2-8 2 Consider it all joy, my brothers, when you encounter various trials, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. 4 And let perseverance be perfect, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. 5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and he will be given it. 6 But he should ask in faith, nothing wavering, for the one who wavers is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed about by the wind. 7 For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord, 8 since he is a man of two minds, unstable in all his ways.
You’re supposed to be interested in becoming perfect in the sense of being complete or whole. Good idea, no? This means that you view Life’s Little Issues as the opportunity for joy. As a believer who’s doing everything else right, the thing you really need and that you might be short on is the wisdom to do this. And in the Wisdom Tradition, God is the source of wisdom. Lucky for you that God is identified precisely as the One who Gives, isn’t it?
Now here’s a key point. You know that business about “nothing wavering?” It means that because God is the One who Gives, you can ask with perfect confidence that he will respond. It doesn’t mean that you have all the answers because, remember, you’re short on wisdom. Smarts, you know, the ability to deal properly with the things that challenge and try us, to see them as a source of “joy.”
Now the thing is, I’ve also defined the nature of this wisdom for you. Yup. But because I put it a few chapters away, and because your GD is only forty minutes long, and because you do so need to get to the bottom of how many polygamous marriages can be solemnized on the head of pin in that forty minutes, you almost never find it. Anyway, here you go:
James 3:13-18 13 Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show his works by a good life in wisdom’s meekness.
Wisdom’s meekness? That’s the approach to life that admits you don’t have all the answers and that God does. Trust in God and all that.
14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. 15 Wisdom of this kind does not come down from above but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every foul practice.
We Sages sometimes can’t quite make up our mind about things but on one point we tend to be quite clear. Folks who work in a wisdom tradition that comes from below find themselves engaged in lots of strife. And there’s a clear contrast with the other kind of wisdom:
17 But the wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, without inconstancy or insincerity. 18 And the fruit that is righteousness is sown in peace by those who cultivate peace.
So now…if you would like to recognize folks who have actually managed to get close to the “nothing wavering” standard and so receive the wisdom from above, you’ll see a way of life characterized by peace and peacemaking. It is this wisdom that enables them to create and achieve relationships that are peaceful precisely in those situations that invite conflict.
Nothing Wavering. Indeed.
By Mogget
Some time ago someone made a comment on one of our threads characterizing the LDS notion of revelation as a “hot sensation brought on by emotionally charged media.” In regard to the role of revelation in the conversion experience, the writer also felt “challenged” by the need to explain the revelatory experience to an investigator because he or she had “expected divine communication to be more clear.”
I share the writer’s distaste for the maudlin and sentimental in media, from which I protect myself via the “off” button. The remainder of the critique, however, is less than compelling. The key to the writer’s anxieties and discomfort probably lies within his or her expectations. If I had to guess, I’d say that those expectations were forged almost completely by interaction with the BoM and perhaps the surviving popular accounts of early LDS experiences.
The LDS conversion paradigm, however, is grounded in the NT conversion experience and the NT idea of what is communicated during conversion. Conversion events in the NT are emotional but they do not tail off into emotional incoherence. Instead, these experiences lead to behaviors that form and shape the community into the body of Christ. Missionaries are uniquely qualified for their role in bringing the conversion event to culmination.
Read more »
By TT
Let us posit for the moment that Mormonism is not true, but that some other religion is. I am curious about how LDSs will be judged with respect to the covenants they have made. Mormons have made covenants before God to follow certain teachings. How will Mormons who have broken those covenants be judged? Will it be to their advantage because Mormonism is false? How about Mormons who have kept those covenants? Will they be rewarded because they kept the promise that they made to God?
I suppose that the same question is valid if Mormonism is true with respect to the vows and commitments made by others. How will the vows of a Buddhist monk be evaluated by God?
Part of the reason that I am asking this question is whether or not the fact that one has made a covenant to do so is a sufficient reason for someone to remain active in the church. Thoughts?
